Simple mistake? Single season? Really? When I first saw the iPhone unveiled, I declared that the world of communications had forever changed. Any company not recognizing that fact would die the bad death they deserved. RIM completely dismissed the iPhone and its significance. Heck, they didn't even think it was possible. They didn't just miss a single season either. By the time they realized the iPhone was the new definition of phone, they were already dead.
Your declaration was incorrect.
The original iphone didn't change a thing --- Apple was trying to sell a $600 simlocked phone with a 2 year contract. The business model bombed. The world changed with the 3G iphone, not the original iphone.
What Nokia and RIM never realized was that carriers would be willing to subsidize the 3G iphone to the point of causing them to file SEC filings about profit margin warnings. That was the original big mistake for these two handset companies. But it maybe also a big mistake by the carriers to sell their soul to get the iphone --- only crying over now that it is going to be the trojan horse that is going to kill their business. Who knew the carriers were that stupid?
But by then it was too late --- technically --- because Nokia and RIM found themselves unable to put in PC-style stuff on their custom made operating systems. It was like trying to put a GUI on a operating system that was originally designed for your car's anti-lock braking system.
Then RIM bought QNX and got themselves a RTOS that can also run big PC-style POSIX apps on a self-hosted PC. But Nokia was stuck because the only other viable RTOS was vxworks --- which was bought out by Intel (and they have no intention of selling).
Financial advisors are only interested in profits not if a product is good or not. The biggest mistake that companies do is to go public and let these parasites bankers take control of their companies.
Get that stuff out of here!
Those companies went public so they could raise more capital, simple as that. If companies think that "financial advisors" are only interested in profits and they don't care about good products, they shouldn't have gone public in the first place. You can't have the cake and eat it at the same time. Also, a company's job is to make profits.
Face it, pal. If you were in their position (financial advisors), you would also look for profits.
2 Years ago I was with Verizon with 3 phones = $82 per month family plan. Then I moved to AT&T with three iphones. AT&T paid Apple $400 x 3 = $1,200; I pay AT&T $220 per month = $5,280 over two years. And fixing to get the IP5 x 3 for another two years.
Guess it was not too stupid of carriers to find the sweet spot for this new technology.....
2 Years ago I was with Verizon with 3 phones = $82 per month family plan. Then I moved to AT&T with three iphones. AT&T paid Apple $400 x 3 = $1,200; I pay AT&T $220 per month = $5,280 over two years. And fixing to get the IP5 x 3 for another two years.
Guess it was not too stupid of carriers to find the sweet spot for this new technology.....
Except that in those 2 years, Verizon attracted far more postpaid net adds and far higher profits without the iphone than AT&T with the iphone. And Verizon stock prices have done better than AT&T's stock prices since June 2007 when the first iphone was launched.
Except that in those 2 years, Verizon attracted far more postpaid net adds and far higher profits without the iphone than AT&T with the iphone. And Verizon stock prices have done better than AT&T's stock prices since June 2007 when the first iphone was launched.
I think u are trying to compare apples to oranges. Did the iphone at AT&T improve their business? And did it make AT&T more competitive?
Steve Jobs was dead on when he said convincing developers to support a third platform would be difficult. And this goes for the rumored new, from-the-ground-up Windows mobile OS too.
Exactly. There's seriously only room for the #1 platform (iOS) and the runner-up (Android.) Android will generate income for Google through AdMob. AdMob is the only reason why Google gives Android away for free. They're selling their customers' eyeballs on AdMob Ads. Period.
So the battle for a distant 2nd place behind iOS is a fight for profit and market share. But the battle for #3 is for survival. I doubt QNX and WP7 and Bada can all survive in the very distant #3, #4, and #5 positions.
Of course, there's a sucker born every minute. Cheapskates will go for the lowest-end alternative to iOS devices that they can find. They'll get what they paid for, they'll hate it, and they'll rationalize their poor choice by saying "Oh well, at least it was cheap."
But developers are another story. It takes time, money, and effort to develop high-quality apps for iOS and Android. There are 500k apps on iOS, Apple has paid $1 billion in revenue to developers in just 3 years. Those are compelling facts for any developer.
Android is doing relatively well in the smartphone market, but extremely poorly in the pad computing market. With no light at the end of the tunnel. Chrome OS won't change that, except that maybe a few former netbook-makers will have a second chance at the low-end market. Everyone else is doing extremely poorly in both the smartphone and pad computing markets. You do the math. Developers certainly do.
RIM will eventually die a painful, slow, profit-bleeding death from mortal wounds inflicted internally. They are just a short time away from obsolescence.
But, as consumers, why would we cheer on their fall from grace? Competition is good for consumers. We want RIM to stay healthy to given GOOG and AAPL a run for their money. Everyone wins in that scenario.
The original iphone didn't change a thing --- Apple was trying to sell a $600 simlocked phone with a 2 year contract. The business model bombed. The world changed with the 3G iphone, not the original iphone.
What Nokia and RIM never realized was that carriers would be willing to subsidize the 3G iphone to the point of causing them to file SEC filings about profit margin warnings. That was the original big mistake for these two handset companies. But it maybe also a big mistake by the carriers to sell their soul to get the iphone --- only crying over now that it is going to be the trojan horse that is going to kill their business. Who knew the carriers were that stupid?
But by then it was too late --- technically --- because Nokia and RIM found themselves unable to put in PC-style stuff on their custom made operating systems. It was like trying to put a GUI on a operating system that was originally designed for your car's anti-lock braking system.
Then RIM bought QNX and got themselves a RTOS that can also run big PC-style POSIX apps on a self-hosted PC. But Nokia was stuck because the only other viable RTOS was vxworks --- which was bought out by Intel (and they have no intention of selling).
Sounds good in theory. Kind of. But, in practice, these are words that make little sense together. Why does a smartphone need an RTOS in the classical sense? And if one is needed, VxWorks and QNX are not the only options. As for "PC-style POSIX", you do know that is just techno verbal diarrhea that makes no sense, right?
As for when the world changed, that's just semantic bluster.
Sounds good in theory. Kind of. But, in practice, these are words that make little sense together. Why does a smartphone need an RTOS in the classical sense? And if one is needed, VxWorks and QNX are not the only options. As for "PC-style POSIX", you do know that is just techno verbal diarrhea that makes no sense, right?
As for when the world changed, that's just semantic bluster.
They don't necessarily need an RTOS for a smartphone --- but having a RTOS also means that they can do it more cheaply. Nokia and RIM can't compete with Apple on getting cheap parts --- so they are going to rely on integrated chipsets. Android runs 3 operating systems on an integrated chipset --- a hypervisor at the bottom, a RTOS running the baseband and Linux/Android.
VxWorks and QNX are the number 1 and number 2 in the RTOS space. Sure there are many other smaller RTOS suppliers, but they are also much smaller. You are buying the OS engineers.
When I said "PC-style" --- I meant that all the smartphones now are getting their browsers and their apps ported from the desktop world. If you have a custom made OS with a million things missing --- it is going to be impossible to port something like flash to your OS. The best you can do with maybe flash lite (like wii's internet channel).
My school PTO has co-Presidents, three VPs, two secretary and a treasurer or two. Just made me think of that.
Really Off Topic:
I can recall the grade school where my daughters went that seemed to need co-presidents, more to salve egos than any real need. When their term was up, they were still on the PTA board as "Past Co-Presidents." in any given year the four could never arrive at anything like a consensus over things that mattered. Each had their own agendas and axes to grind so nothing really got accomplished.
Not only that, there was a district site council where a non-president member of each PTA represented their school at the district-wide site council. This rep might or might not have been on the same page as the PTA officers.
Also you couldn't succeed yourself as either PTA president or site council rep. But there was one guy who (with help from his wife) timed their pregnancies to maximize his decades-long rotation from VP to Prez to Site Council back to VP... As soon as one kid was in kindergarten, the next was born, ready to be enrolled in kindergarten when the elder kid graduated from 5th grade.
I beg to differ as I prefer one for business and one for personal. I am a strong believer that Tiger Woods got into trouble because he mixes business (Elin) with pleasure (All his mistresses) by using the same phone. If he had two devices dedicated for different purposes, Elin might not have seen the unabridged history of his sextexting.
Oh, that's really rich!
We true philanderers are so paranoid that we don't even own cell phones, never give out home or business phone numbers or email addresses. We don't use Yahoo or Gmail. We use coded chalk marks on certain newsracks: | means OK (for the prearranged meeting at the prearranged place) and - means no go. For our absences we have lots of coffee shops where we go to "have coffee and read the newspaper." No favorites, just lots. The staff don't know our names. Of course we're rarely seen at these coffee shops and never with our paramours.
How would we know if that's true? Just another rumor.
No, it's true. Can't find the reference right now, but the story is that the RIM guys bought one and took it back to the boardroom or something because they couldn't believe it was really possible to do an interface so smooth and animated on the power and memory requirements available.
No, it's true. Can't find the reference right now, but the story is that the RIM guys bought one and took it back to the boardroom or something because they couldn't believe it was really possible to do an interface so smooth and animated on the power and memory requirements available.
RIM allegedly doubted Apple?s ability to produce the original iPhone when the first-gen handset was initially announced, then thrown into panic after teardowns of the smartphone revealed the company had managed to produce a full-touch device with market-ready battery life. According to comments posted (and since deleted) by an ex-RIM employee at ShackNews, RIM believed that the first iPhone ?couldn?t do what [Apple was] demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor,? and that ?it must have terrible battery life.?
?Imagine their surprise? he continued, ?when they disassembled an iPhone for the first time and found that the phone was battery with a tiny logic board strapped to it.? RIM is believed to have held all-hands meetings the day after Apple debuted the iPhone on stage, with the company?s experts arguing that what had been demonstrated was, effectively, impossible for a workable device.
I'm not a RIM shareholder, but my nephew works in R & D there so I'd like to see them be successful.
If I was a shareholder, I'd be concerned for sure. I think a change at the top is needed. The problem is you are dealing with the egos of the founders, so a change is not likely to happen.
Sort of. I don't think shareholders expressing their concerns about how a company is run is any kind of problem, but whenever I've suggested this where Apple is concerned, I'm branded as an apostate.
You weren't branded, well it wasn't exactly an apostate, but something, not because you suggested shareholders ought to express concerns generally, but because you specifically insisted that it was a good idea for shareholders to force Apple to publish their succession plans. You could at least be honest about what you actually said and not coyly pretend it was something entirely different from what it was.
I never understood why there were co-CEOs. That tells me true lack of direction and management. RIM isn't going to disappear of course, but they are in some trouble.
Atari, Commodore, Wang, Palm . . . RIM. Pioneers who got stuck at square one.
Comments
Simple mistake? Single season? Really? When I first saw the iPhone unveiled, I declared that the world of communications had forever changed. Any company not recognizing that fact would die the bad death they deserved. RIM completely dismissed the iPhone and its significance. Heck, they didn't even think it was possible. They didn't just miss a single season either. By the time they realized the iPhone was the new definition of phone, they were already dead.
Your declaration was incorrect.
The original iphone didn't change a thing --- Apple was trying to sell a $600 simlocked phone with a 2 year contract. The business model bombed. The world changed with the 3G iphone, not the original iphone.
What Nokia and RIM never realized was that carriers would be willing to subsidize the 3G iphone to the point of causing them to file SEC filings about profit margin warnings. That was the original big mistake for these two handset companies. But it maybe also a big mistake by the carriers to sell their soul to get the iphone --- only crying over now that it is going to be the trojan horse that is going to kill their business. Who knew the carriers were that stupid?
But by then it was too late --- technically --- because Nokia and RIM found themselves unable to put in PC-style stuff on their custom made operating systems. It was like trying to put a GUI on a operating system that was originally designed for your car's anti-lock braking system.
Then RIM bought QNX and got themselves a RTOS that can also run big PC-style POSIX apps on a self-hosted PC. But Nokia was stuck because the only other viable RTOS was vxworks --- which was bought out by Intel (and they have no intention of selling).
Financial advisors are only interested in profits not if a product is good or not. The biggest mistake that companies do is to go public and let these parasites bankers take control of their companies.
Get that stuff out of here!
Those companies went public so they could raise more capital, simple as that. If companies think that "financial advisors" are only interested in profits and they don't care about good products, they shouldn't have gone public in the first place. You can't have the cake and eat it at the same time. Also, a company's job is to make profits.
Face it, pal. If you were in their position (financial advisors), you would also look for profits.
Guess it was not too stupid of carriers to find the sweet spot for this new technology.....
2 Years ago I was with Verizon with 3 phones = $82 per month family plan. Then I moved to AT&T with three iphones. AT&T paid Apple $400 x 3 = $1,200; I pay AT&T $220 per month = $5,280 over two years. And fixing to get the IP5 x 3 for another two years.
Guess it was not too stupid of carriers to find the sweet spot for this new technology.....
Except that in those 2 years, Verizon attracted far more postpaid net adds and far higher profits without the iphone than AT&T with the iphone. And Verizon stock prices have done better than AT&T's stock prices since June 2007 when the first iphone was launched.
Except that in those 2 years, Verizon attracted far more postpaid net adds and far higher profits without the iphone than AT&T with the iphone. And Verizon stock prices have done better than AT&T's stock prices since June 2007 when the first iphone was launched.
I think u are trying to compare apples to oranges. Did the iphone at AT&T improve their business? And did it make AT&T more competitive?
Steve Jobs was dead on when he said convincing developers to support a third platform would be difficult. And this goes for the rumored new, from-the-ground-up Windows mobile OS too.
Exactly. There's seriously only room for the #1 platform (iOS) and the runner-up (Android.) Android will generate income for Google through AdMob. AdMob is the only reason why Google gives Android away for free. They're selling their customers' eyeballs on AdMob Ads. Period.
So the battle for a distant 2nd place behind iOS is a fight for profit and market share. But the battle for #3 is for survival. I doubt QNX and WP7 and Bada can all survive in the very distant #3, #4, and #5 positions.
Of course, there's a sucker born every minute. Cheapskates will go for the lowest-end alternative to iOS devices that they can find. They'll get what they paid for, they'll hate it, and they'll rationalize their poor choice by saying "Oh well, at least it was cheap."
But developers are another story. It takes time, money, and effort to develop high-quality apps for iOS and Android. There are 500k apps on iOS, Apple has paid $1 billion in revenue to developers in just 3 years. Those are compelling facts for any developer.
Android is doing relatively well in the smartphone market, but extremely poorly in the pad computing market. With no light at the end of the tunnel. Chrome OS won't change that, except that maybe a few former netbook-makers will have a second chance at the low-end market. Everyone else is doing extremely poorly in both the smartphone and pad computing markets. You do the math. Developers certainly do.
But, as consumers, why would we cheer on their fall from grace? Competition is good for consumers. We want RIM to stay healthy to given GOOG and AAPL a run for their money. Everyone wins in that scenario.
Your declaration was incorrect.
The original iphone didn't change a thing --- Apple was trying to sell a $600 simlocked phone with a 2 year contract. The business model bombed. The world changed with the 3G iphone, not the original iphone.
What Nokia and RIM never realized was that carriers would be willing to subsidize the 3G iphone to the point of causing them to file SEC filings about profit margin warnings. That was the original big mistake for these two handset companies. But it maybe also a big mistake by the carriers to sell their soul to get the iphone --- only crying over now that it is going to be the trojan horse that is going to kill their business. Who knew the carriers were that stupid?
But by then it was too late --- technically --- because Nokia and RIM found themselves unable to put in PC-style stuff on their custom made operating systems. It was like trying to put a GUI on a operating system that was originally designed for your car's anti-lock braking system.
Then RIM bought QNX and got themselves a RTOS that can also run big PC-style POSIX apps on a self-hosted PC. But Nokia was stuck because the only other viable RTOS was vxworks --- which was bought out by Intel (and they have no intention of selling).
Sounds good in theory. Kind of. But, in practice, these are words that make little sense together. Why does a smartphone need an RTOS in the classical sense? And if one is needed, VxWorks and QNX are not the only options. As for "PC-style POSIX", you do know that is just techno verbal diarrhea that makes no sense, right?
As for when the world changed, that's just semantic bluster.
I think u are trying to compare apples to oranges. Did the iphone at AT&T improve their business? And did it make AT&T more competitive?
But AT&T could have spent that billions of dollars in iphone subsidies on --- like a LTE network.
Sounds good in theory. Kind of. But, in practice, these are words that make little sense together. Why does a smartphone need an RTOS in the classical sense? And if one is needed, VxWorks and QNX are not the only options. As for "PC-style POSIX", you do know that is just techno verbal diarrhea that makes no sense, right?
As for when the world changed, that's just semantic bluster.
They don't necessarily need an RTOS for a smartphone --- but having a RTOS also means that they can do it more cheaply. Nokia and RIM can't compete with Apple on getting cheap parts --- so they are going to rely on integrated chipsets. Android runs 3 operating systems on an integrated chipset --- a hypervisor at the bottom, a RTOS running the baseband and Linux/Android.
VxWorks and QNX are the number 1 and number 2 in the RTOS space. Sure there are many other smaller RTOS suppliers, but they are also much smaller. You are buying the OS engineers.
When I said "PC-style" --- I meant that all the smartphones now are getting their browsers and their apps ported from the desktop world. If you have a custom made OS with a million things missing --- it is going to be impossible to port something like flash to your OS. The best you can do with maybe flash lite (like wii's internet channel).
Yeah, did the RIM engineers think Apple was lying about the iPhone capabilities when the iP1 was first introduced? I think I have that right.
How would we know if that's true? Just another rumor.
When I first saw the iPhone unveiled, I declared that the world of communications had forever changed.
I don't remember this at all.
My school PTO has co-Presidents, three VPs, two secretary and a treasurer or two. Just made me think of that.
Really Off Topic:
I can recall the grade school where my daughters went that seemed to need co-presidents, more to salve egos than any real need. When their term was up, they were still on the PTA board as "Past Co-Presidents." in any given year the four could never arrive at anything like a consensus over things that mattered. Each had their own agendas and axes to grind so nothing really got accomplished.
Not only that, there was a district site council where a non-president member of each PTA represented their school at the district-wide site council. This rep might or might not have been on the same page as the PTA officers.
Also you couldn't succeed yourself as either PTA president or site council rep. But there was one guy who (with help from his wife) timed their pregnancies to maximize his decades-long rotation from VP to Prez to Site Council back to VP... As soon as one kid was in kindergarten, the next was born, ready to be enrolled in kindergarten when the elder kid graduated from 5th grade.
[/tangent]
I beg to differ as I prefer one for business and one for personal. I am a strong believer that Tiger Woods got into trouble because he mixes business (Elin) with pleasure (All his mistresses) by using the same phone. If he had two devices dedicated for different purposes, Elin might not have seen the unabridged history of his sextexting.
Oh, that's really rich!
We true philanderers are so paranoid that we don't even own cell phones, never give out home or business phone numbers or email addresses. We don't use Yahoo or Gmail. We use coded chalk marks on certain newsracks: | means OK (for the prearranged meeting at the prearranged place) and - means no go. For our absences we have lots of coffee shops where we go to "have coffee and read the newspaper." No favorites, just lots. The staff don't know our names. Of course we're rarely seen at these coffee shops and never with our paramours.
How would we know if that's true? Just another rumor.
No, it's true. Can't find the reference right now, but the story is that the RIM guys bought one and took it back to the boardroom or something because they couldn't believe it was really possible to do an interface so smooth and animated on the power and memory requirements available.
No, it's true. Can't find the reference right now, but the story is that the RIM guys bought one and took it back to the boardroom or something because they couldn't believe it was really possible to do an interface so smooth and animated on the power and memory requirements available.
Here you go.....
http://www.slashgear.com/rim-doubted...ider-28121462/
From the article:
RIM allegedly doubted Apple?s ability to produce the original iPhone when the first-gen handset was initially announced, then thrown into panic after teardowns of the smartphone revealed the company had managed to produce a full-touch device with market-ready battery life. According to comments posted (and since deleted) by an ex-RIM employee at ShackNews, RIM believed that the first iPhone ?couldn?t do what [Apple was] demonstrating without an insanely power hungry processor,? and that ?it must have terrible battery life.?
?Imagine their surprise? he continued, ?when they disassembled an iPhone for the first time and found that the phone was battery with a tiny logic board strapped to it.? RIM is believed to have held all-hands meetings the day after Apple debuted the iPhone on stage, with the company?s experts arguing that what had been demonstrated was, effectively, impossible for a workable device.
If I was a shareholder, I'd be concerned for sure. I think a change at the top is needed. The problem is you are dealing with the egos of the founders, so a change is not likely to happen.
Sort of. I don't think shareholders expressing their concerns about how a company is run is any kind of problem, but whenever I've suggested this where Apple is concerned, I'm branded as an apostate.
You weren't branded, well it wasn't exactly an apostate, but something, not because you suggested shareholders ought to express concerns generally, but because you specifically insisted that it was a good idea for shareholders to force Apple to publish their succession plans. You could at least be honest about what you actually said and not coyly pretend it was something entirely different from what it was.
I never understood why there were co-CEOs. That tells me true lack of direction and management. RIM isn't going to disappear of course, but they are in some trouble.
Atari, Commodore, Wang, Palm . . . RIM. Pioneers who got stuck at square one.